The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-03-02
TIE OATH.

The men who are protesting
against he MJrmons taking the oath
prescribed in the Edmuuds-Tucker bill
and asserting that TO take the oath the
non-pol5 ganyas Mormon would have
to stIuIY himself, are labcring under
an Ig-oraut or wilIful misconception
OF the requirements in the proposed
oath. They assume-0r their arguments
are childish ana without force-that
tie DENIAL oil ones faith or belitf IN the
Mormon religion is contemplated in
the Catl, whereas the domain of be
lief has not been Jrencned upon by the
trainers Of the law. On the contrary,
care has been taken to avoid require
ment rs TO religious faith, as it was too
well known TO Congressman that such a
clause could result in the Wedding OF
the law, as belief is something which
cannog be interfered with or legislated
against.
This matter was made plain during
the discussion in the Senate on the con
Hoar, who had heard that the sug-
gess5d oath attacked belief, asked SEN
ator Edmunds if it were true; if the bill
anywhere "either in prescribing an
oath or in prescribing a qualification
or a disqualification for office or the
exercise of any civil right, attacks a
mere opinion?" He said a remonstrance
against the bill had been addressed to
him based upon the belief that opinion
was TO be attacked in the oath, hence he
asked the question now, in order that
1.-THE public uneasiness in that respect
should be removed by the chairman of
the committee" Senator Edmunds
said "lhe remonstrance wasaddressed
to q great many of US before the re-
monstrants knew what the provision
was. They thought it was one thing,
while we intended it to be and made it
quite another" The Senator also de-
clared that neither the oath nor the bill
attacked an opinion or belief; that ''the
most astute and ingenious sophist can
not find anywhere in this section about
oaths any hint of such thing. 1t was
carefully excluded just as the former law
excluded it" This is what one OF
the authors of the bill says as to the
alleged test oath, which the local ring is
so fearful the Mormons will take at the
peril of their souls.
Senator ingalls,, member of the
conference committee, and recognized
as a pronounced anti-Mormon, was'
even more plain and emphatic than
Edmunds in the denial that the ques-
ton of belief or opinion was to be put
to the test OF in the least interfered
with. We quote from the Congressional
Record what the Senator said on this
matter:
Mr.. INGALLs-Mr. President, the instincls
of my nature are such that as one of the con
ferees upon this bill was led to act with the
greatest dellberation in every particular
in which supposed that its terms might in
any way whatever trench upon the liberty
of conscience and the absolute and I'M
restrained freedom of personal belief.
Mr.. EDMUNDs-Or opinion.
Mr. INGALLs-Yes; as the Senator from
Vermont suggests, or of opinion: because |
claiming for myself the widest liberty to |
question, to doubt, or to believe as my rea- |
son and my impulses direct, l should be the |
last to refuse that same right to anv other
person or any other sect, no matter where it |
might be or what its claimscmight be for
consideration either by Congress or by CON
traSt with the tenetS or doctrines of any other |
organization.
Understand that the provision of the Con
stitutiOn which the Senator from Missouri |
considers to be in some way or other in |
fringed by the terms of this bill is that which |
is found in the following language: "But no
religious tests shall ever be required as a |
qualification to any Office or public trust I'M |
der the United States" 1t is unnecessary |
for me TO say'that have as much respect for |
the sincere convictions of a Mormon as I |
have for those of an EpiscOpalian, Catholic |
Congregationalist a Baptist or a Method |
ist all religious belief honestly entertained |
Is respectable. It may be erroneous: nv |
Judgment may diSapprOye and condemn if. |
but any religious faith is entitled to respect |
II honestly entertained. II is not the Nor |
mon religion with which we are dealing in |
this measure, but the practice of polygamy, |
which is one of the doctrines of a portion of |
that church; and if supposed or believed, |
or If l could be made to perceive now that !
there was anywhere in the text of this bill |
latent even, concealed, any purpose or in
tent 10 interfere with the religious belief of |
even the humblest member of the Mormon /
Church, any attempt to interfere with |
opinions entertained upon religious cues
mons, would dlSayow 1t; l would retract so |
far as might my concurrence with the CON
ference report. But do moi so understand it.
1t is not my belief that by any of the pro-
visions OF tne oath which these people are
required TO take they are in any manner
compelled to abandon their religions
op mons concerning any doctrine on which
individuals in the Christian world disagree.
and I should be glad if the Senator from
Missouri, with whom l sympathise in many
of the views he has expressed, woul6b point
out to the Senate wherein the oatn that is
prescribed in this bill imposes any religions
test which would be obnoxious or inimic0I
TO the provision of the Constitution to which |
! have referred.
Now, if this we're test oath" in the
offensive sense of the term, and in
tended to force the Mormoas into a de.